Evaluation of osteoporosis risk and initiation of a nurse practitioner intervention program in an orthopedic practice

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study

Background

Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives

1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.

Methods

The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.

Results

Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.

Conclusions

Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.

Future work

Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.

Limitations

Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance

Systematic reviews that examine effectiveness of interventions to improve medicines optimisation do not explain how or why they work. This realist review identified that interventions which effectively optimise medicines use in osteoporosis include opportunities to address patients' perceptions of illness and treatment and/or support primary care clinician decision making.

INTRODUCTION

In people with osteoporosis, adherence to medicines is poorer than other diseases and patients report follow-up is lacking, and multiple unmet information needs. We conducted a rapid realist review to understand what contextual conditions and mechanisms enable interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation.

METHODS

A primary search identified observational or interventional studies which aimed to improve medicines adherence or optimisation; a supplementary second search identified research of any design to gain additional insights on emerging findings. Extracted data was interrogated for patterns of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, further discussed in team meetings, informed by background literature and the Practicalities and Perception Approach as an underpinning conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We identified 5 contextual timepoints for the person with osteoporosis (identifying a problem; starting medicine; continuing medicine) and the practitioner and healthcare system (making a diagnosis and giving a treatment recommendation; reviewing medicine). Interventions which support patient-informed decision making appear to influence long-term commitment to treatment. Supporting patients' practical ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) only appears to be helpful, when combined with other approaches to address patient beliefs and concerns. However, few studies explicitly addressed patients' perceptions of illness and treatment. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important, in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis.

The orthopaedic nurse practitioner: Breaking tradition to fill gaps in care delivery through varied scopes of practice

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are the world's fourth largest burden of disease, accounting for more than 50% of chronic health conditions in the population aged >50 years (Briggs et al., 2016). This increasing burden is due to a progressively overweight, sedentary and ageing population and is often poorly recognised as a priority globally in an under-resourced health care system. This article reviews the current literature to identify where Orthopaedic Nurse Practitioners (ONPs) currently fill gaps in care delivery through varied scopes of practice in musculoskeletal trauma, degenerative disease, tumour and bone health. The varied scopes of practice include, fracture management, surgical assisting, performing surgical and/or advanced clinical procedures, prescribing treatment for bone health, conducting home visits and managing ONP led outpatient clinics. The article will outline current ONP roles in orthopaedic trauma, pain management, fragility hip fractures, osteoporosis, bone and soft tissue sarcoma and surgical assisting which effectively address long waiting lists, gaps in care delivery and reduce costs currently being managed by the health care system.

METHOD

A brief search of the literature published from January 2008-January 2020 on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Ovid, PubMed, Embase and Pro Quest databases was undertaken using key words Orthopaedic Nurse Practitioner, Advanced Practice Nurse (APN), musculoskeletal health, bone health, nurse-led and nurse specialist.

CONCLUSION

ONPs offer an innovative, viable and cost-effective solution to providing comparable, effective and efficient care with varied scopes of practice and valuable experience in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications: an updated systematic review

An earlier systematic review on interventions to improve adherence and persistence was updated. Fifteen studies investigating the effectiveness of patient education, drug regimen, monitoring and supervision, and interdisciplinary collaboration as a single or multi-component intervention were appraised. Multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement were more effective.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to update a systematic literature review on interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov , NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, CINHAL, and PsycINFO to search for original studies that assessed interventions to improve adherence (comprising initiation, implementation, and discontinuation) and persistence to anti-osteoporosis medications among patients with osteoporosis, published between July 2012 and December 2018. Quality of included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 585 studies initially identified, 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of which 12 were randomized controlled trials. Interventions were classified as (1) patient education (n = 9), (2) drug regimen (n = 3), (3) monitoring and supervision (n = 2), and (4) interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 1). In most subtypes of interventions, mixed results on adherence (and persistence) were found. Multicomponent interventions based on patient education and counseling were the most effective interventions when aiming to increase adherence and/or persistence to osteoporosis medications.

CONCLUSION

This updated review suggests that patient education, monitoring and supervision, change in drug regimen, and interdisciplinary collaboration have mixed results on medication adherence and persistence, with more positive effects for multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement. Compared with the previous review, a shift towards more patient involvement, counseling and shared decision-making, was seen, suggesting that individualized solutions, based on collaboration between the patient and the healthcare provider, are needed to improve adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medications.

Interventions to improve osteoporosis care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Osteoporosis (OP) is a major public health concern, but still OP care does not meet guidelines. Interventions have been developed to improve appropriate OP management. The objective of the present study was to systematically review the current literature to ascertain the efficacy of interventions to improve OP care and characterize interventions taking into account elements related to their potential cost and feasibility. Studies published from 2003 to 2018 were retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Wiley Online Library databases. Screening of references and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. We classified interventions into three types according to the target of the intervention: health system (structural interventions), healthcare professional (HCP), and patient. Meta-analysis was performed by type of intervention and their effect on two outcomes: prescription of BMD measurement and prescription of OP therapy. A total of 4268 records were screened; 32 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 29 studies in the quantitative analysis. Structural interventions strongly and significantly improved prescription of BMD measurement (OR = 9.99, 95% CI 2.05; 48.59) and treatment prescription (OR = 3.82, 95% CI 2.16; 6.75). The impact of HCP-centered interventions on BMD measurement prescription did not reach statistical significance (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 0.84; 5.73) but significantly improved treatment prescription (OR = 3.82, 95% CI 2.16; 6.75). Interventions involving patients significantly improved the prescription of BMD measurement (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.62; 2.89) and treatment prescription (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.35; 2.14). Interventions to improve OP management had a significant positive impact on prescription of BMD measurement but a more limited impact on treatment prescription.

Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF)

Many patients at increased risk of fractures do not take their medication appropriately, resulting in a substantial decrease in the benefits of drug therapy. Improving medication adherence is urgently needed but remains laborious, given the numerous and multidimensional reasons for non-adherence, suggesting the need for measurement-guided, multifactorial and individualized solutions.

INTRODUCTION

Poor adherence to medications is a major challenge in the treatment of osteoporosis. This paper aimed to provide an overview of the consequences, determinants and potential solutions to poor adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medication.

METHODS

A working group was organized by the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO) to review consequences, determinants and potential solutions to adherence and to make recommendations for practice and further research. A systematic literature review and a face-to-face experts meeting were undertaken.

RESULTS

Medication non-adherence is associated with increased risk of fractures, leading to a substantial decrease in the clinical and economic benefits of drug therapy. Reasons for non-adherence are numerous and multidimensional for each patient, depending on the interplay of multiple factors, suggesting the need for multifactorial and individualized solutions. Few interventions have been shown to improve adherence or persistence to osteoporosis treatment. Promising actions include patient education with counselling, adherence monitoring with feedback and dose simplification including flexible dosing regimen. Recommendations for practice and further research were also provided. To adequately manage adherence, it is important to (1) understand the problem (initiation, implementation and/or persistence), (2) to measure adherence and (3) to identify the reason of non-adherence and fix it.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations are intended for clinicians to manage adherence of their patients and to researchers and policy makers to design, facilitate and appropriately use adherence interventions.

Evaluation of a "Just-in-Time" Nurse Consultation on Bone Health: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Evidence is inconclusive whether a nurse consultation can improve osteoporosis-related patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a nurse consultation immediately after dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) produced better osteoporosis-related outcomes than a simple intervention to activate adults in good bone health practices or usual care.

DESIGN

Pilot randomized controlled trial, conducted within the larger Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) trial (NCT01507662). After DXA, consenting adults age 50 years or older were randomly assigned to 3 groups: nurse consultation, PAADRN intervention (mailed letter with individualized fracture risk and an educational brochure), or usual care (control). Nurse consultation included reviewing DXA results, counseling on bone health, and ordering needed follow-up tests or physician referrals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change from baseline to 52 weeks in participant-reported osteoporosis-related pharmacotherapy, lifestyle, activation and self-efficacy, and osteoporosis care satisfaction.

RESULTS

Nurse consultation participants (n = 104) reported 52-week improvements in strengthening and weight-bearing exercise (p = 0.09), calcium intake (p < 0.01), osteoporosis knowledge (p = 0.04), activation (p < 0.01), dietary self-efficacy (p = 0.06), and osteoporosis care satisfaction (p < 0.01). Compared with PAADRN intervention participants (n = 39), nurse consultation participants had improved dietary self-efficacy (p = 0.07) and osteoporosis care satisfaction (p = 0.05). No significant improvements in osteoporosis-related outcomes were achieved vs PAADRN controls (n = 70).

CONCLUSION

"Just-in-time" nurse consultation yielded a few improvements over 52 weeks in osteoporosis-related outcomes; however, most changes were not different from those obtained through the lower-cost PAADRN intervention or usual care.

Osteoporosis Management in Ankylosing Spondylitis

Low bone mineral density (BMD) is increasingly recognized as a common comorbid condition in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). As low BMD increases fracture risk, it is important to identify and treat low BMD in patients with AS who have been shown to be at increased risk for fractures above the population normal. Since low BMD occurs early in disease, we screen during the first year of diagnosis with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). If patients are found to have osteoporosis by T-score of less than -2.5 or if their Z-score on DXA is more than two standard deviations below the mean, we initiate therapy with bisphosphonates in males and in females who are not planning any future pregnancies. While reduction in fracture risk with bisphosphonate therapy has not been clearly defined in patients with AS, reduction in vertebral and hip fractures has been well established in primary osteoporosis and thus it is our first line treatment. If there are contraindications to the use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of low BMD, we will consider the use of denosumab. If the patient is not receiving a TNF-alpha inhibitor (TNFi) and has active disease, we also favor early initiation of TNFi due to their positive effects on BMD though the outcome on reduction in vertebral fractures remains unclear. We counsel all patients regarding the importance of adequate intake of vitamin D and calcium per the Institute of Medicine guidelines. All patients should be encouraged to participate in weight-bearing activities with a focus on core strength and gait training.